Putting San Onofre to the test

Future of San Onofre plant, shuttered since January 2012 with generator problems, lies with regulators in next few weeks

FILE - In this Jan. 14, 2013 file photo provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Alison Macfarlane, second from right, the chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, listens to Richard St. Onge, director of Nuclear Regulatory Affairs for Southern Cal Edison, third from right, speak during a tour of the troubled San Onofre Nuclear Power Station in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. As the Monday, March 11, 2013, two-year anniversary approaches of the earthquake and tsunami that crippled Japan's F
— AP

FILE - In this Jan. 14, 2013 file photo provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Alison Macfarlane, second from right, the chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, listens to Richard St. Onge, director of Nuclear Regulatory Affairs for Southern Cal Edison, third from right, speak during a tour of the troubled San Onofre Nuclear Power Station in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. As the Monday, March 11, 2013, two-year anniversary approaches of the earthquake and tsunami that crippled Japan's F
/ AP

Related:

CEO Ted Craver said a decision could be made by year’s end to permanently shut down the plant in northern San Diego County, which would be costly and mean less energy for the region’s power grid.

The comments have refocused attention on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it conducts a technical review of Edison’s plan to restart one of two reactors at 70 percent power for a short period.

“Speaking as a former regulator, it’s certainly part of the industry playbook to say, ‘If we don’t get our way, something you’re not going to like will follow,’ ” said Peter Bradford, a former member of the nuclear commission who teaches at the Vermont Law School. “I can’t tell you if that’s what Edison is doing in this case.”

Edison’s restart plan is designed to lessen damaging vibrations among steam generator tubes carrying radioactive water. San Onofre has been shut down since a tube leak developed in January 2012. The conclusion of the safety review has been delayed for months as Edison and a special inspection team exchange thousands of pages of highly technical correspondence.

The nuclear commission is conducting separate investigations into allegations of willful wrongdoing by Edison and the agency’s own staff.

Commission Chairwoman Allison Macfarlane, who is following progress at San Onofre through weekly staff briefings, says those investigations are not focused on technical safety issues concerning the steam generators at San Onofre.

“Any information that appears to have the potential to impact public health and safety will be immediately provided” to the staff reviewing the restart, Macfarlane said in a recently released letter to a Senate oversight committee.

As the technical review progresses, decisions are still pending at the nuclear commission on two petitions accusing Edison of improperly sidestepping a more-robust review of its replacement steam generators and, more recently, its restart plan.

The petitioner, nuclear safety activist group Friends of the Earth, is accusing the nuclear commission of stonewalling, while Edison maintains it followed regulations.

“The design defects would have come out before, had there been a license amendment process,” said Damon Moglen, climate and energy director for the advocacy group. “In the meantime, there’s talk of restarting the plant while they are diddling.”

Whether utility customers continue to underwrite San Onofre also will depend on ongoing deliberations before the California Public Utilities Commission.

An initial round of evidentiary hearings kicks off Monday at the state agency’s San Francisco headquarters to determine who pays for a plant no longer delivering electricity — utility stockholders or customers in Southern California.

For now, the hearings are confined to the prudence of costs incurred during 2012 by Edison and plant co-owner San Diego Gas & Electric, which has a 20 percent stake in San Onofre. (The city of Riverside owns a small share as well.) The utilities commission has shown a reluctance to move forward with broader issues without further technical conclusions from federal safety regulators about the plant’s damage and viability.

Several consumer advocates are cautioning that none of the proceedings weigh the cost effectiveness of restarting the plant to generate electricity at 35 percent of its previous capacity.

Those advocates include former San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre, who worries that accountability for the faulty generator design is being postponed and could eventually be overlooked entirely.

“There should have been a congressional investigation into this, and there still should be,” he said.